University Physics by Young & Freedman - Self Study

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around concerns about the adequacy of using the Young and Freedman physics text alongside Stewart's calculus for preparing for a physics degree. The user finds the physics text's calculus-based sections too basic and worries about being unprepared for university-level challenges. Participants suggest that introductory physics courses typically align with concurrent calculus studies, easing students into the material. They reassure that the text is widely used, including at prestigious institutions like MIT, indicating its suitability. Recommendations include reaching out to professors for guidance and utilizing additional resources, such as practice exams and lectures, to bolster understanding and preparation in subjects like optics and relativity. Overall, the consensus is that the current study materials are appropriate, with an emphasis on gradual learning and preparation for more advanced topics.
truman
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Am I being lulled by a basic text?

I am re-studying basic physics and calculus for a run at a physics degree. I am using the Stewart text for calculus and I find it challenging.

I am using the Young and Freedman physics text, and I find the calculus-based portions incredibly basic. I am afraid if I am not using a challenging enough text, I will be hit with a brick wall when I re-enroll at university.

Am I on the right course with this text?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Do you plan to start out in the intro mechanics class? What is your background?
 
xdrgnh said:
Do you plan to start out in the intro mechanics class? What is your background?

This. I think most schools start the core classes after calc based physics 2 (e&m / waves, opticks, motion).
 
I've only had calc based phyics, I&II. We did not do optics or relativity, just mechanics and some e&m, and motion.

I wanted to review those subjects, do optics and (basic) relativity, basically this whole text. I just don't want to get to a new school and instead of deriving a very basic formula, they're integrating some huge formula with CAS. I can figure that out, I just want to be prepared.
 
truman said:
I've only had calc based phyics, I&II. We did not do optics or relativity, just mechanics and some e&m, and motion.

I wanted to review those subjects, do optics and (basic) relativity, basically this whole text. I just don't want to get to a new school and instead of deriving a very basic formula, they're integrating some huge formula with CAS. I can figure that out, I just want to be prepared.

you'll be fine, email a professor or someone in the undergrad dept to be safe.
 
Most freshman physics texts are written with the expectation that students are taking calculus concurrently, i.e. they don't know much calculus the first few weeks. They start out very gently with the math, but it will ramp up.

If you go here
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-01-physics-i-fall-2003/syllabus/
you will see that Young and Freedman was used in the freshman physics class at MIT not very long ago. So assuming your school isn't a lot harder than MIT, you should be fine.

That site should also give you some good practice exams, and it also has video lectures (based on a different text, I think).
 
Last edited:
The book is fascinating. If your education includes a typical math degree curriculum, with Lebesgue integration, functional analysis, etc, it teaches QFT with only a passing acquaintance of ordinary QM you would get at HS. However, I would read Lenny Susskind's book on QM first. Purchased a copy straight away, but it will not arrive until the end of December; however, Scribd has a PDF I am now studying. The first part introduces distribution theory (and other related concepts), which...
I've gone through the Standard turbulence textbooks such as Pope's Turbulent Flows and Wilcox' Turbulent modelling for CFD which mostly Covers RANS and the closure models. I want to jump more into DNS but most of the work i've been able to come across is too "practical" and not much explanation of the theory behind it. I wonder if there is a book that takes a theoretical approach to Turbulence starting from the full Navier Stokes Equations and developing from there, instead of jumping from...

Similar threads

Replies
17
Views
6K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
16
Views
9K
Replies
13
Views
4K
Replies
17
Views
6K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Back
Top